To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Daily
Trojan
Volume LXXII, Number 11
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Monday, October 3, 1977
POWER AT USC
Decisions made, control exercised by select group
By Gary Maloney
The headline “8.47% Tuition Increase Approved by Trustees Committee” greeted the Monday-worn students on an otherwise bright morning last February. The tuition hike was what students were most concerned about.
But for the faculty member rushing to his classroom, for the staff worker behind her desk, for the teaching assistant leaving his discussion group, another of the committee’s decisions was of primary concern — a 6% across-the-board salary increase, with additional funds for specific group adjustments.
Coupled together, the two decisions brought universal dismay.
The Council of Deans and the Faculty Senate debated whether to withdraw from the President’s Advisory Council (PAC), the four-year-old organ of constituent representation in administrative circles. The advisory' council’s proposal for a 6.78% tuition hike and slightly larger salary' increases, the culmination of many weeks of accumulation of data and research, had been virtually tossed aside.
Teaching assistants contemplated striking for higher wages and were a week away from actually walking out before being placated in negotiations with the administration.
The chairman ofthe Student Senate wondered aloud whether the 8.47% increase (to $128 per unit) would price the university out of the middle-class students’ market.
Related stories on pages 4 and 5
And the students in general — well, they never were too crazy about tuition increases.
The disappointment and disillusionment placed a question in many minds — who really runs the university? Who has the power ... and why?
★ ★ ★
The administrative hierarchy at the university is not particularly complicated, involved or mysterious. There are no Gnomes of Zurich or tall dark men in trenchcoats and sunglasses occupying the offices in the Administration Building. There are, however, some individuals whose weight in administrative circles is far greater than their positions on the university flow chart would indicate. In many cases, administrators and faculty have refused even to discuss these individuals on any level with reporters; some say they fear reprisals.
Generally, however, the people officially in charge of
university affairs are long-time professional educators and administrators. The president has often been heard to comment on how pleased he is with the administrative hierarchy here.
The matter of governance here differs from the state colleges principally in the administation’s adherence to the direction of the Board of Trustees; the University of California campuses report to the California Board of Regents, who in turn represent the taxpayers who support the system. Naturally, USC complies with federal, state and local laws governing all educational institutions — but the final word on governance lies with the board, a group of private citizens.
The published policy confirms the responsibility of
ANALYSIS
the board forthe university as a corporation and educational institution:
“The powers of the corporation (the university) shall be exercised, its property controlled arid its affairs conducted by a Board of...trustees..”
Bylaws of the university, as amended through June, 6, 1973 "BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, acting through its officers, has both the right and the responsibility to .. . affirm its final authority over the ongoing institution, and (no policy) pertaining to any subject promulgated by this board shall be construed as in any way abridgiyig the basic powers, rights and responsibilities of this board."
Board resolution adopted Oct. 1, 1969
Whither, then, the power of the board? Are 42 men and women, dedicated contributors and supporters of the university, in active control of the institution?
Two distinctions must be made in describing the power of the board. The first deals with the board’s “acting through its officers,” as in the quote above.
The officers of the corporation are the chairman and ■vice-chairmen of the board, the president, the executive vice-president, the seven vice-presidents (or as many as are deemed necessary) and the chancellor, an optional officer whom the board may appoint.
“All officers shall serve at the pleasure of the board,” the bylaws continue. “Any two or more offices except those of the president of the university and the secret-
ary of the university may be held by the same person.” (There is no secretary at the present time.)
The authority delegated to the president in the bylaws is considerable. As chief executive officer, he is charged with the duty of carrying out the board’s policies.
However, he also may delegate any of his functions as president to others; he has full power of appointment, direction and supervision of the faculties and organization thereof. His nominations of university officers must be confirmed by the board, but all other appointments are of his own accord, the bylaws say.
Therefore, the written authority of the board is diluted as the officers it confirms perform the day-to-day duties of their positions.
The second distinction is the difference between the written authority of the board and the university’s officers and the actual authority delegated to each administrator.
As a body, the trustees decide on such matters as the budget, student rights and responsibilities and general university policy. However, by the admission of some trustees themselves, board members do not spend a significant amount of time on campus to be able to personally assess day-to-day situations in university affairs.
“The board has no control over immediate university governance,” said Anna Bing Arnold, a board member in a recent interview. “I do not feel as a trustee that I can comment on specific situations at the university — I am not there every single day and the administrators are.”
(continued on page 2)
News Analysis
“Power at USC" inaugurates a new section. News Analysis, to be published in the Monday issues of the Daily Trojan.
News Analysis seeks to place in context the seemingly unrelated news and information which abounds throughout the university and in our pages. Conclusions will tend toward answering "What is?” and “Why?” rather than “What should be?” — based less on biases than prevailing facts.
Questions, comments and letters regarding News Analysis may be directed to the Daily Trojan Feature Office in Student Union 421C, 741-5497.

Daily
Trojan
Volume LXXII, Number 11
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Monday, October 3, 1977
POWER AT USC
Decisions made, control exercised by select group
By Gary Maloney
The headline “8.47% Tuition Increase Approved by Trustees Committee” greeted the Monday-worn students on an otherwise bright morning last February. The tuition hike was what students were most concerned about.
But for the faculty member rushing to his classroom, for the staff worker behind her desk, for the teaching assistant leaving his discussion group, another of the committee’s decisions was of primary concern — a 6% across-the-board salary increase, with additional funds for specific group adjustments.
Coupled together, the two decisions brought universal dismay.
The Council of Deans and the Faculty Senate debated whether to withdraw from the President’s Advisory Council (PAC), the four-year-old organ of constituent representation in administrative circles. The advisory' council’s proposal for a 6.78% tuition hike and slightly larger salary' increases, the culmination of many weeks of accumulation of data and research, had been virtually tossed aside.
Teaching assistants contemplated striking for higher wages and were a week away from actually walking out before being placated in negotiations with the administration.
The chairman ofthe Student Senate wondered aloud whether the 8.47% increase (to $128 per unit) would price the university out of the middle-class students’ market.
Related stories on pages 4 and 5
And the students in general — well, they never were too crazy about tuition increases.
The disappointment and disillusionment placed a question in many minds — who really runs the university? Who has the power ... and why?
★ ★ ★
The administrative hierarchy at the university is not particularly complicated, involved or mysterious. There are no Gnomes of Zurich or tall dark men in trenchcoats and sunglasses occupying the offices in the Administration Building. There are, however, some individuals whose weight in administrative circles is far greater than their positions on the university flow chart would indicate. In many cases, administrators and faculty have refused even to discuss these individuals on any level with reporters; some say they fear reprisals.
Generally, however, the people officially in charge of
university affairs are long-time professional educators and administrators. The president has often been heard to comment on how pleased he is with the administrative hierarchy here.
The matter of governance here differs from the state colleges principally in the administation’s adherence to the direction of the Board of Trustees; the University of California campuses report to the California Board of Regents, who in turn represent the taxpayers who support the system. Naturally, USC complies with federal, state and local laws governing all educational institutions — but the final word on governance lies with the board, a group of private citizens.
The published policy confirms the responsibility of
ANALYSIS
the board forthe university as a corporation and educational institution:
“The powers of the corporation (the university) shall be exercised, its property controlled arid its affairs conducted by a Board of...trustees..”
Bylaws of the university, as amended through June, 6, 1973 "BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, acting through its officers, has both the right and the responsibility to .. . affirm its final authority over the ongoing institution, and (no policy) pertaining to any subject promulgated by this board shall be construed as in any way abridgiyig the basic powers, rights and responsibilities of this board."
Board resolution adopted Oct. 1, 1969
Whither, then, the power of the board? Are 42 men and women, dedicated contributors and supporters of the university, in active control of the institution?
Two distinctions must be made in describing the power of the board. The first deals with the board’s “acting through its officers,” as in the quote above.
The officers of the corporation are the chairman and ■vice-chairmen of the board, the president, the executive vice-president, the seven vice-presidents (or as many as are deemed necessary) and the chancellor, an optional officer whom the board may appoint.
“All officers shall serve at the pleasure of the board,” the bylaws continue. “Any two or more offices except those of the president of the university and the secret-
ary of the university may be held by the same person.” (There is no secretary at the present time.)
The authority delegated to the president in the bylaws is considerable. As chief executive officer, he is charged with the duty of carrying out the board’s policies.
However, he also may delegate any of his functions as president to others; he has full power of appointment, direction and supervision of the faculties and organization thereof. His nominations of university officers must be confirmed by the board, but all other appointments are of his own accord, the bylaws say.
Therefore, the written authority of the board is diluted as the officers it confirms perform the day-to-day duties of their positions.
The second distinction is the difference between the written authority of the board and the university’s officers and the actual authority delegated to each administrator.
As a body, the trustees decide on such matters as the budget, student rights and responsibilities and general university policy. However, by the admission of some trustees themselves, board members do not spend a significant amount of time on campus to be able to personally assess day-to-day situations in university affairs.
“The board has no control over immediate university governance,” said Anna Bing Arnold, a board member in a recent interview. “I do not feel as a trustee that I can comment on specific situations at the university — I am not there every single day and the administrators are.”
(continued on page 2)
News Analysis
“Power at USC" inaugurates a new section. News Analysis, to be published in the Monday issues of the Daily Trojan.
News Analysis seeks to place in context the seemingly unrelated news and information which abounds throughout the university and in our pages. Conclusions will tend toward answering "What is?” and “Why?” rather than “What should be?” — based less on biases than prevailing facts.
Questions, comments and letters regarding News Analysis may be directed to the Daily Trojan Feature Office in Student Union 421C, 741-5497.